FSU is not in control of getting into the SEC. UF, UGA, UK, USC, and now Texas A&M are. They will not allow another team from their state to get into the league. It would remove a tremendous recruiting advantage those schools have over their in-state rivals. The SEC is also not going to expand with a team in a market they are already represented in. It doesn't make sense in terms of TV dollars. For FSU to get into the SEC, they would have to move to North Carolina.

If the SEC expands, I am betting they will, the list of candidates would include UNC amd Duke (Duke's football would be hard to accept, but hoops and academics would be nice, plus it might be what it takes to land UNC), NC State, UVA or Va Tech, or possibly OU/okie state (once again, I doubt the SEC would double down in a market, but if they could get OU, maybe it would be worth it).

So, then, what changed from the 80's and early 90's when the SEC wanted them to now, when they don't? The recruiting issue was an issue then as it was now. It's not about market redundancy...FSU is a MAJOR program. And if one believes that FSU is getting blocked based on a this supposed "1-per rule", then, are we supposed to believe that Texas never has a shot because of A&M? That Oklahoma will never go because of OSU?

Heck, I'm pretty sure Miami would still be accepted if they applied.

I believe FSU has opponents in the SEC who would be against them...but it's not UF, UGA, or 'Bama. I think it's schools like USC, Miss, and MSU...the low-middle to bottom public schools who couldn't likely compete. But I don't believe they could stop FSU if FSU actually formally applied to join the league.

I'll stand by it...there is absolutely no reason FSU couldn't already be in the SEC, be it a decade ago, last year, yesterday, today, or any day hereafter. It's their administration and key boosters who are the problem. Their brass have no qualms whatsoever throwing the ACC under the bus ANY opportunity they can. And they cut FSU's checks!!! So why not also make the SEC a public punching bag? Because you have fans and alumni on both sides who want them there? Because the administration and the alumni and fans want different things, and if they did put down the SEC, these people would be run out of town on a rail?

---

That aside, I'm curious whatthis new Notre Dame deal means for those in the ACC. Money doesn't seem to be that great, but all combined, ND's still getting a better cut than many in the ACC. BC's hockey (heck, all of Hockey East I'd wager) has to be piiiissed. And Swarbick was tweeting that the Shamrock Series games are independent of these deals, so there's more money to be had?

Cutter, I'm not sure I get your point. Are you saying FSU can't play in the cold and that they are too scared to join the SEC so they are perfectly happy to be in the ACC?

I don't know if it's fear that keeps them out of the SEC. I think it's ego. Ego from the administration, and ego from the core boosters (including the former coach). I think Bowden was kind of a hack, but he was smart enough to propel his program to the top by way of a talent-rich, football-craving state and region beating up lesser competition...be it in the mid-south as an independent, or up and down the coast in the ACC.

I don't think it's in FSU to regularly compete up in the Big Ten. They aren't a program built to, although I do think they could do well enough to bowl most years. They're a warm-weather school; they recruit and draw warm-weather kids and fans. To alienate that base...imagine the California schools recruiting deep into Texas and Louisiana for basketball players. It's just goofy.

FSU isn't an ACC school. Not academically, not athletically. But, it wants to look good. They need to prioritize there...if they're serious about competing at the top level, they need to do whatever it takes to get into the SEC; something, I suspect, that's not the SEC's problem to solve, but getting people out of the FSU system to stop holding them back.

FSU is not in control of getting into the SEC. UF, UGA, UK, USC, and now Texas A&M are. They will not allow another team from their state to get into the league. It would remove a tremendous recruiting advantage those schools have over their in-state rivals. The SEC is also not going to expand with a team in a market they are already represented in. It doesn't make sense in terms of TV dollars. For FSU to get into the SEC, they would have to move to North Carolina.

If the SEC expands, I am betting they will, the list of candidates would include UNC amd Duke (Duke's football would be hard to accept, but hoops and academics would be nice, plus it might be what it takes to land UNC), NC State, UVA or Va Tech, or possibly OU/okie state (once again, I doubt the SEC would double down in a market, but if they could get OU, maybe it would be worth it).

Why would the SEC take two teams from NC but not FL? Other than no current member to block the vote.

FSU is not in control of getting into the SEC. UF, UGA, UK, USC, and now Texas A&M are. They will not allow another team from their state to get into the league. It would remove a tremendous recruiting advantage those schools have over their in-state rivals. The SEC is also not going to expand with a team in a market they are already represented in. It doesn't make sense in terms of TV dollars. For FSU to get into the SEC, they would have to move to North Carolina.

If the SEC expands, I am betting they will, the list of candidates would include UNC amd Duke (Duke's football would be hard to accept, but hoops and academics would be nice, plus it might be what it takes to land UNC), NC State, UVA or Va Tech, or possibly OU/okie state (once again, I doubt the SEC would double down in a market, but if they could get OU, maybe it would be worth it).

So, then, what changed from the 80's and early 90's when the SEC wanted them to now, when they don't? The recruiting issue was an issue then as it was now. It's not about market redundancy...FSU is a MAJOR program. And if one believes that FSU is getting blocked based on a this supposed "1-per rule", then, are we supposed to believe that Texas never has a shot because of A&M? That Oklahoma will never go because of OSU?

Heck, I'm pretty sure Miami would still be accepted if they applied.

I believe FSU has opponents in the SEC who would be against them...but it's not UF, UGA, or 'Bama. I think it's schools like USC, Miss, and MSU...the low-middle to bottom public schools who couldn't likely compete. But I don't believe they could stop FSU if FSU actually formally applied to join the league.

I'll stand by it...there is absolutely no reason FSU couldn't already be in the SEC, be it a decade ago, last year, yesterday, today, or any day hereafter. It's their administration and key boosters who are the problem. Their brass have no qualms whatsoever throwing the ACC under the bus ANY opportunity they can. And they cut FSU's checks!!! So why not also make the SEC a public punching bag? Because you have fans and alumni on both sides who want them there? Because the administration and the alumni and fans want different things, and if they did put down the SEC, these people would be run out of town on a rail?

---

That aside, I'm curious whatthis new Notre Dame deal means for those in the ACC. Money doesn't seem to be that great, but all combined, ND's still getting a better cut than many in the ACC. BC's hockey (heck, all of Hockey East I'd wager) has to be piiiissed. And Swarbick was tweeting that the Shamrock Series games are independent of these deals, so there's more money to be had?

What changed, only about billions of dollars in TV contracts. OU and Okie state is also a tough deal. I believe the state legislature in Oklahoma will have a hard time with those two schools splitting up. I do believe that Texas will have a hard time if they ever wanted into the SEC because of the Aggies and the rest of the schools voting in a block, Georgia doesn't want Georgia Tech, Florida doesn't want FSU and USC doesn't want Clemson.

Conference expansion has not been about creating better leagues in terms of on the field product. It is all about TV dollars. Adding FSU would be a big grab in terms of talent. But they don't move the needle in terms of TV contracts. Bringing in Va Tech and one or more of UNC/Duke/NC State would add millions of cable subscribers in those states.

Miami a private school would be a better fit for the B12 rather than the SEC.It would fit in well with Baylor and TCU.

Whether UT can keep two Florida schools out of the b12 if Fox wants them is another question.

Also the value in terms of tv dollars to the ACC is another question.

With the breakup of the old BE ND found a good new home at little cost to them.

You are right on Miami. In 1990, the SEC conversation with them did not go well. At the time, there was a big issue with the sports Miami sponsored at the time, particularly under-developed women's sports. Who rejected who may be argued, but it was no match, and Miami was showing some arrogance at the time, given their fb success during the period.

FSU was offered the SEC around '90, and opted for the ACC. I doubt FSU would reject an SEC offer now unless the ACC exit criteria forces otherwise. FSU has much more to offer than Miami.

When the SEC was saying they didn't want to add the 'second school(s)' from a state within, it was at the time of taking Texas A&M which had been in the works for years. For #14, Mizzou was suddenly making itself available, and frankly the SEC moved on the opportunity and saw it as the best option. The SEC could always add a couple of ACC schools later if they decided to, so FSU, Clemson, VPI were taken off the table for the prior expansion.

Miss. State, Ole Miss, SC, etc., may not be more opposed to expansion than any others in the conference. Some of these schools are in extrememly tight recruiting areas. Miss. State, for example, is in a comparatively rural region, has 'Bama just an hour away to one side, Ole Miss on the other, and also has to go against LSU, Arkansas, Auburn, and Tennessee for nearby prospects. Then add, Southern Miss., Memphis, UAB, etc., in the hunt, pickings are far from unlimited.

The SEC school that complained the most about expansion in '90 was Alabama. Georgia sponsored South Carolina. When Mizzou was added, 'Bama also rumbled about adding and divisions. Alabama is hardly a middle or low-level player when it comes to SEC sports. The most verbal (and active) Presidents on SEC expansion appear to have been from Florida and South Carolina. And their comments have not all-centered on FSU and Clemson critiques, which politically they cannot diss.

If the SEC expands, it would try to get into North Carolina. Perhaps Virginia also. And if Texas wanted in without unreasonable demands, I doubt that call would be unanswered. Perhaps Oklahoma as well. But the SEC would not want to take a new 'pair' from the same state, while having refused to take new additions from states within.

The "aces" for the SEC would maybe be among North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, Oklahoma, and suppose Notre Dame if such would ever be remotely considered. Most from the list would be unrealistic.

The SEC may have to take Duke (maybe NCSU) to get UNC IF the ACC unlikely breaks. A lot of issues with Duke football (stadium size, recent success, etc.) that are not so easy to accept. And, several other ACC schools would have to leave beforehand for that to be possible.

Its all about tv money.Then there is the 9 game schedule.5 games in your division and 2 with each of the other divisions.Sort of like the NFLThe ACC will be like old BE then.Those who left earlier will be re-united with old friends.The last of the old ACC schools with their 30k football stadiums duke and wake forest will be their in addition.

Duke has the endowments & some wealthy alumni that could expand the fb stadium. The problem is, they don't fill what they already have. GA, Fla., Tenn., etc. don't want to frequently go in there before a crowd of 26,000 or so, of which half or better could be their own traveling fans. The expectation would be for Duke to at least match Vandy in size and attendance.

Why would the SEC take two teams from NC but not FL? Other than no current member to block the vote.

Good question.

hendu1976fl wrote:

What changed, only about billions of dollars in TV contracts.

Markets are only one piece of it, and content's got the bigger slice.

FSU in the SEC gives them that content.

ctx48c wrote:

Its all about tv money.

That's just it...if that's the motivation, the Big Ten wasn't too smart. It's good for the Big Ten if the Big Ten was only Michigan and Ohio State, because those schools now get yearly games in the corridor. But UMD and Rutgers don't have anything with those guys. I don't expect UMD or Rutgers games in MD or NJ filling up for some of these games if their home team is always a doormat. And the carriage fees won't always be there for the B1G to grift.

And, again, doing business with too many "loners" in the east isn't going to make getting some of the chasers any easier. Network dollars won't budge the stick up the ACC schools' butts with UMD, and nobody's going to want to join the gang because of the mighty Rutgers. The best these guys can do in the east at this point are Syracuse, Pitt, BC, and VT. I don't think that's what they want.

Adding quality schools from within states already covered offers convenience, less travel, and natural and traditional rivalries with certain exisiting members that could be enhanced. This could happen if the SEC took, for example, any of FSU, GT, Clemson, or Louisville. The same may be said if the B1G took schools such as Iowa State and Pitt. In the formative days of conferences, such would be the key consideration. It is not that none of this matters anymore. Rather, in-state possibilities have become increasingly negative due to political ramifications, competition in recruiting, and broadcasting coverage. If a sister school is trying to get in one's conference, one worries about how this shall affect revenue disbursements, legislative clout, media attention, and choices recruits may make.

As long as major conferences such as the SEC and B1G have external and contiguous options for state flagships & landgrants outside their immediate footprint, they are prone not to pursue "first" schools in states in which a presence already exisits. There are exceptions though, such as Notre Dame which is private. Texas is a public flagship that would be an exception.

The B1G is holding at 14 and that is what they are using for 2014. Why did they stop there? Waiting for the next broadcasting arrangement? Want the Maryland exit terms cleared up first? Disagreement among existing conference members about further expansion? Fear of developing reputation? Certain targeted schools said "no thanks"? Let's wait and see what others do? Let's see how the playoff initiative further unfolds? It could be some of these questions, or partly all of them.

As to FSU, it's not like they are a strong, demanding orphan the powerful don't want. They are not in BYU's situation. FSU is in a "good" conference, but not the greatest one. FSU, a national-brand type school, retains a direct avenue to fine bowls, and when they win the ACC with no more than maybe one loss, I don't see how they would not be given serious consideration in the playoff picture. The real drawback is that the ACC's current TV contract renders less for disbursements compared to some others such as the B1G, SEC, & PAC12. The ACC can only close that gap some with success and improved conference decision-making, and FSU must be part of the effort. Sometimes one has to live with decisions made decades ago, and make the best of it in the meantime and near future.

Why would the SEC take two teams from NC but not FL? Other than no current member to block the vote.

Good question.

hendu1976fl wrote:

What changed, only about billions of dollars in TV contracts.

Markets are only one piece of it, and content's got the bigger slice.

FSU in the SEC gives them that content.

ctx48c wrote:

Its all about tv money.

That's just it...if that's the motivation, the Big Ten wasn't too smart. It's good for the Big Ten if the Big Ten was only Michigan and Ohio State, because those schools now get yearly games in the corridor. But UMD and Rutgers don't have anything with those guys. I don't expect UMD or Rutgers games in MD or NJ filling up for some of these games if their home team is always a doormat. And the carriage fees won't always be there for the B1G to grift.

And, again, doing business with too many "loners" in the east isn't going to make getting some of the chasers any easier. Network dollars won't budge the stick up the ACC schools' butts with UMD, and nobody's going to want to join the gang because of the mighty Rutgers. The best these guys can do in the east at this point are Syracuse, Pitt, BC, and VT. I don't think that's what they want.

To answer your question about why 2 schools from North Carolina and not Florida, the SEC is already represented in the Sunshine state, but has no members in the Tarheel State. If the SEC wants UNC bad enough, they might be willing to offer both schools, especially if it lands UNC. I am not saying that I agree with that, but I can see the SEC taking that approach, especially if they know that 16 is not going to be the end game.

In regards to TV markets and TV content, I am pretty sure there will be plenty of content with Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas AM, Tenn, and the improved Mississippi schools. Especially during football season. What about basketball season? Would FSU add a great deal of content during hoops season? I think UNC and Duke to the SEC might add some decent mathchups.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum